It's pretty simple. A conversion from WHr to mAH using the quoted nominal voltage isn't straight forward.
Now, I still have no idea what the conspiracy is with this. Apple is underquoting the battery capacity for what purpose? How does it help them?
And precisely because it is not straight forward that I said it is all about marketing.
There are multiple sets of numbers printed on the actual battery. It's either 3.78V with 14.6Wh for each cell --- for a total of 43.8wh. Or it's 3.7V 43wh for a total of 11560 mah. Both numbers are higher than the 42.5wh listed on Apple's website.
I didn't say anything about conspiracy (except on the idiotic QNX car battery stuff).
I don't care what purpose as to why Apple is under-reporting. I simply said that Apple under-reported the true capacity of their battery capacity.
Color me impressed that the 10 hour "All Day Battery" was maintained. It took a big battery update to accomplish.
Many of us thought that more efficient parts were going to be used but it appears that for the sake of expediency the new iPad wasn't able to leverage many of these parts.
<snip>
A year from now I see no reason why Apple won't be able to deliver a Cortex A15 based iPad with Rogue graphics and other features while producing battery life in excess of 10 hours.
Is it expediency or budgetary? Apple had a slotted release date. Newer components are going to be more expensive, as well as more difficult to resource. Apple most likely went with components that fit the build cost and could be reliably sourced. Sure in a year when Apple does the refresh, they can go to more efficient devices, but even a company with short development times like Apple is not going to risk a shortage of build parts.
Apple once again under-reported the new ipad's true battery capacity.
Go and look at the teardown is live right now --- the label on actual battery is printed as 3.7v 43 wh (not 42.5 wh on their website) and 11560 mah. Ifixit managed to over-look this on their website and still talking abuot 42.5wh.
And if you look at the label on the individual batteries --- it's 3x14.6wh = 43.8 wh.
What more can you say? Apple listed their battery capacity as 42.5 wh on their website but the actual battery is printed with 43 wh and 11560 mah.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
How dare they underpromise and overdeliver.
The next thing you know, they'll start underclocking components to increase battery life...
The next thing you know, they'll start underclocking components to increase battery life...
It's like that Seinfeld episode where the gang loves the taste of that fat free frozen yogurt --- only that the taste is good because it contained massive amount of fat.
There is nothing really magical about the ipad in terms of battery life --- except that Apple engineers masterfully managed to insert a massive battery inside a really thin case. We should commend Apple for this really cool engineering feat.
It's like that Seinfeld episode where the gang loves the taste of that fat free frozen yogurt --- only that the taste is good because it contained massive amount of fat.
From what I've read, the charging time for the new iPad is going to be long--possibly needing overnight (circa seven hours) for a full charge using the 10W USB power adapter that comes with it.
I use an iPad 2 and when I drain the battery down to 25%, a recharge to 100% takes about little over two hours.
In short, people traveling with their new iPads may want to keep the USB power adapter and the USB cable with them at all times.
And you're complaining because you were able to construct a more efficient version in your basement lab? Apple has to balance out features with cost considerations. There's likely a lot they could have done but not necessarily at their desired price points. In any event, it's a fine end product for the price.
He brought up a legitimate issue regarding the power efficiency of the device. Whats wrong in that?
Right price points? I dont think so. It has to do more with the parts availability more so than the price.
The lower manufacturing fabrication techs werent available in abundance when Apple started developing the next generation iPad. I'm speculating that those samples were available after Apple was in knee deep development stage. If it were Steve Jobs, I'm sure he would've halted all development and jumped on the newer tech first. But this is Tim Cook we are talking about. He is more conscious about costs.
There's no need speculate about charging times. Test it. My iPad 1 typically charged about 20% an hour, or five hours for a full charge. I recharged my new iPad 3 last night from the 50% level, checking its progress every half hour. It averaged about 17% an hour, or a little less than three hours back to full. That means a little less than six hours for a full charge. That's fine for the benefit of the new screen.
Color me impressed that the 10 hour "All Day Battery" was maintained. It took a big battery update to accomplish.
Many of us thought that more efficient parts were going to be used but it appears that for the sake of expediency the new iPad wasn't able to leverage many of these parts.
Anandtech found that the LTE was the 40nm MDM9600 and not the more efficient MDM9615
The A5X processor is also still 45nm as well. Add 1GB of RAM and a higher end display and GPU and you've pretty much got a worst case scenario.
A year from now I see no reason why Apple won't be able to deliver a Cortex A15 based iPad with Rogue graphics and other features while producing battery life in excess of 10 hours.
When the MDM9615 and 32nm A6 chips inevitably arrive in next year's iPad, do you think Apple will take that opportunity to reduce the current battery size and slim down the iPad itself, or will they maintain the capacity/size and advertise greater battery life? I personally believe they'll stick with 10hrs battery life and reduce the weight of the iPad by eliminating some battery that will be no longer needed with the more efficient chips.
More than fine is the premise of my posting. When I say worst cast scenario I mean that as the newer LTE radios come in smaller more power efficient designs and as the SoC shrinks as well the ability to deliver either a smaller package or a 15 hour iPad will be presented. IMO of course.
I get where you are going with this line of thinking. You're probably right as well. Next year should see an actual bump in battery life.
When the MDM9615 and 32nm A6 chips inevitably arrive in next year's iPad, do you think Apple will take that opportunity to reduce the current battery size and slim down the iPad itself, or will they maintain the capacity/size and advertise greater battery life? I personally believe they'll stick with 10hrs battery life and reduce the weight of the iPad by eliminating some battery that will be no longer needed with the more efficient chips.
I could see a smaller battery in the next iPad in conjunction with lower geometry parts leading to weight reduction and increase in battery life to 12 hours on Wifi models. Lasting half a day would be a nice marketing bullet point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy
I get where you are going with this line of thinking. You're probably right as well. Next year should see an actual bump in battery life.
Agree. Wouldn't be surprised to see Retina display added to most of the Apple portable products. The eyes can easily get used to higher resolution and it looks like Apple's battery tech is up to the task.
We should start posting our battery usages and the times were getting. So far I'm getting about 7 hours of continuous use with wifi on and screen at 50%. No video, just surfing and listening to music. I've had mine since last Friday. I'll take my sim card out of phone and put it in the iPad to test the modem.
Comments
What more can you say? Apple listed their battery capacity as 42.5 wh on their website but the actual battery is printed with 43 wh and 11560 mah.
It's pretty simple. A conversion from WHr to mAH using the quoted nominal voltage isn't straight forward.
Now, I still have no idea what the conspiracy is with this. Apple is underquoting the battery capacity for what purpose? How does it help them?
It's pretty simple. A conversion from WHr to mAH using the quoted nominal voltage isn't straight forward.
Now, I still have no idea what the conspiracy is with this. Apple is underquoting the battery capacity for what purpose? How does it help them?
And precisely because it is not straight forward that I said it is all about marketing.
There are multiple sets of numbers printed on the actual battery. It's either 3.78V with 14.6Wh for each cell --- for a total of 43.8wh. Or it's 3.7V 43wh for a total of 11560 mah. Both numbers are higher than the 42.5wh listed on Apple's website.
I didn't say anything about conspiracy (except on the idiotic QNX car battery stuff).
I don't care what purpose as to why Apple is under-reporting. I simply said that Apple under-reported the true capacity of their battery capacity.
Color me impressed that the 10 hour "All Day Battery" was maintained. It took a big battery update to accomplish.
Many of us thought that more efficient parts were going to be used but it appears that for the sake of expediency the new iPad wasn't able to leverage many of these parts.
<snip>
A year from now I see no reason why Apple won't be able to deliver a Cortex A15 based iPad with Rogue graphics and other features while producing battery life in excess of 10 hours.
Is it expediency or budgetary? Apple had a slotted release date. Newer components are going to be more expensive, as well as more difficult to resource. Apple most likely went with components that fit the build cost and could be reliably sourced. Sure in a year when Apple does the refresh, they can go to more efficient devices, but even a company with short development times like Apple is not going to risk a shortage of build parts.
Apple once again under-reported the new ipad's true battery capacity.
Go and look at the teardown is live right now --- the label on actual battery is printed as 3.7v 43 wh (not 42.5 wh on their website) and 11560 mah. Ifixit managed to over-look this on their website and still talking abuot 42.5wh.
And if you look at the label on the individual batteries --- it's 3x14.6wh = 43.8 wh.
What more can you say? Apple listed their battery capacity as 42.5 wh on their website but the actual battery is printed with 43 wh and 11560 mah.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
How dare they underpromise and overdeliver.
The next thing you know, they'll start underclocking components to increase battery life...
How dare they underpromise and overdeliver.
The next thing you know, they'll start underclocking components to increase battery life...
It's like that Seinfeld episode where the gang loves the taste of that fat free frozen yogurt --- only that the taste is good because it contained massive amount of fat.
There is nothing really magical about the ipad in terms of battery life --- except that Apple engineers masterfully managed to insert a massive battery inside a really thin case. We should commend Apple for this really cool engineering feat.
It's like that Seinfeld episode where the gang loves the taste of that fat free frozen yogurt --- only that the taste is good because it contained massive amount of fat.
I'm just kiddin' with ya, sam! It's all good.
I use an iPad 2 and when I drain the battery down to 25%, a recharge to 100% takes about little over two hours.
In short, people traveling with their new iPads may want to keep the USB power adapter and the USB cable with them at all times.
And you're complaining because you were able to construct a more efficient version in your basement lab? Apple has to balance out features with cost considerations. There's likely a lot they could have done but not necessarily at their desired price points. In any event, it's a fine end product for the price.
He brought up a legitimate issue regarding the power efficiency of the device. Whats wrong in that?
Right price points? I dont think so. It has to do more with the parts availability more so than the price.
The lower manufacturing fabrication techs werent available in abundance when Apple started developing the next generation iPad. I'm speculating that those samples were available after Apple was in knee deep development stage. If it were Steve Jobs, I'm sure he would've halted all development and jumped on the newer tech first. But this is Tim Cook we are talking about. He is more conscious about costs.
For me, I'm unimpressed with the "new" iPad.
For me, I'm unimpressed with the "new" iPad.
Then don't buy one. Easy, peasy.
Color me impressed that the 10 hour "All Day Battery" was maintained. It took a big battery update to accomplish.
Many of us thought that more efficient parts were going to be used but it appears that for the sake of expediency the new iPad wasn't able to leverage many of these parts.
Anandtech found that the LTE was the 40nm MDM9600 and not the more efficient MDM9615
The A5X processor is also still 45nm as well. Add 1GB of RAM and a higher end display and GPU and you've pretty much got a worst case scenario.
A year from now I see no reason why Apple won't be able to deliver a Cortex A15 based iPad with Rogue graphics and other features while producing battery life in excess of 10 hours.
When the MDM9615 and 32nm A6 chips inevitably arrive in next year's iPad, do you think Apple will take that opportunity to reduce the current battery size and slim down the iPad itself, or will they maintain the capacity/size and advertise greater battery life? I personally believe they'll stick with 10hrs battery life and reduce the weight of the iPad by eliminating some battery that will be no longer needed with the more efficient chips.
I'm actually having a difficult time running down my new iPad's battery in order to better calibrate it!
Crank the screen brightness to max and it'll drain pretty fast.
More than fine is the premise of my posting. When I say worst cast scenario I mean that as the newer LTE radios come in smaller more power efficient designs and as the SoC shrinks as well the ability to deliver either a smaller package or a 15 hour iPad will be presented. IMO of course.
I get where you are going with this line of thinking. You're probably right as well. Next year should see an actual bump in battery life.
When the MDM9615 and 32nm A6 chips inevitably arrive in next year's iPad, do you think Apple will take that opportunity to reduce the current battery size and slim down the iPad itself, or will they maintain the capacity/size and advertise greater battery life? I personally believe they'll stick with 10hrs battery life and reduce the weight of the iPad by eliminating some battery that will be no longer needed with the more efficient chips.
I could see a smaller battery in the next iPad in conjunction with lower geometry parts leading to weight reduction and increase in battery life to 12 hours on Wifi models. Lasting half a day would be a nice marketing bullet point.
I get where you are going with this line of thinking. You're probably right as well. Next year should see an actual bump in battery life.
Agree. Wouldn't be surprised to see Retina display added to most of the Apple portable products. The eyes can easily get used to higher resolution and it looks like Apple's battery tech is up to the task.